Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL as >> > a contract in such a case. >> >> Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not sign. > > Spitting coffee all over my two monitors. Dak, dak, dak, you > #%#%&$#%&$#. > > Verträge können schriftlich, mndl. oder durch konkludentes Verhalten > (in etwa: bestätigendes Verhalten) geschlossen werden.
"Konkludentes Verhalten" certainly can't be relevant when nothing in your behavior indicates a willingness to enter into a contractual relation. For example, if you pay with a credit card and your payment bounces later, then contractual obligations according to AGB can be demanded later because "konkludentes Verhalten" definitely signaled your agreement to the implied contractual obligations put forward by the shop's "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen". There are close limits to what AGB can entail: they must not contain any undue surprises but remain within normal expectations. Lots of court decisions about what constitutes proper AGB, the main base for such contracts. Anyway, the bounced payment is always a cause for civil action, and sometimes for fraud (if you knew that the payment would bounce or doctored the credit card). In contrast, if you just shoplift without paying, "konkludentes Verhalten" can't be stated. You can be sued for default damages and criminal charges then. In contrast, the GPL does not meet the preconditions for AGB, contracts that you can enter into without actually perusing or signing them. So in short: you have no clue. Again. Hardly surprising. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
